Water rights and wrongs
There are no comments for this page [ Add Comment ]Monday, February 11, 2008
When you talk about water in the West, you're really talking about money.
That's because water allows not only farmers to grow crops and ranchers to grow herds, it allows the growth of subdivisions, industry and cities. In other words: money.
So the intensity of the wrangling over House Bill 51 in the Legislature comes as no surprise. It concerns water rights -- specifically, the ability of water rights owners to maintain their water rights even if they don't use them.
There appears to be no disagreement over one part of the bill that would change current law. Right now, if the owner of a water right doesn't use the water for five years, and hasn't applied for an extension of the water's non-use by the time that five years is up, the water right may be handed to the next water user in line or auctioned off. HB 51 would extend the five-year deadline to seven years.
The portion of the bill that has people arguing is a provision that protects municipal water rights. Attentive water-rights hawks have noticed, in at least one case, that a city didn't use its water rights and so forced its relinquishment. (The city was Roosevelt, and the case is still working its way through the courts.)
Obviously, this possibility alarms cities that have water rights to water they're not currently using, but banking on for future growth. If those water rights are lost, they may mean a city could no longer expand or accomodate new homes or businesses.
Rural Utahns tend to view HB 51 as a threat. Why, exactly, is a little vague, except that they believe if it came down to competing for water rights between cities or water districts and individuals farmers or ranchers, the agricultural interests would lose. Like we said, that's unclear.
However, it's plain the current threat to cities that could lose water rights for future growth are crystal clear to everyone.
That being the case, we urge lawmakers to look favorably on HB 51.
Text 
